CULHANE vs. AURORA LOAN SVCS of NEBRASKA - KaBOOM! MA Federal District Court SLAMS MERS "Illegal Foreclosure", "Need Note AND Mortgage To Foreclose" -

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

KaBOOM! MA Federal District Court SLAMS MERS “Illegal Foreclosure”, “Need Note AND Mortgage To Foreclose” – CULHANE vs. AURORA LOAN SVCS of NEBRASKA

KaBOOM! MA Federal District Court SLAMS MERS “Illegal Foreclosure”, “Need Note AND Mortgage To Foreclose”  – CULHANE vs. AURORA LOAN SVCS of NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ORATAI CULHANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES
OF NEBRASKA,

Defendant.

EXCERPT:

Nationwide, courts are grappling with challenges to MERS’s
power to assign mortgages as well as its practice of deputizing
employees of other companies to make assignments on its behalf.
The present case is distinct only in that it is this Court’s
first encounter with MERS and with the question whether its
involvement in the origination and assignment of a mortgage loan
clouds record title to the mortgaged property. The public has an
interest in ensuring the liquidity of the mortgage market. Thus,
even if Culhane is unable to exercise her equitable right of
redemption and foreclosure of her mortgage loan is inevitable,
title must pass free of cloud and not subject to challenge in any
future action for summary process or to try title on the ground
that the foreclosure process was conducted unlawfully. See
Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 460 Mass. 762, 772 (2011); Bank of N.Y.
v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327, 333-34 (2011).

[…]

Indeed, a MERS certifying officer is more akin to an Admiral in the Georgia navy or a Kentucky Colonel with benefits than he is to any genuine financial officer. In its rush to cash in on the sale of mortgage-backed securities, the MERS system supplies the thinnest possible veneer of formality and legality to the wholesale marketing of home mortgages to large institutional investors.14

 

[ipaper docId=74158654 access_key=key-pqry20k43wmqfqy06dt height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8610 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

6 Responses to “KaBOOM! MA Federal District Court SLAMS MERS “Illegal Foreclosure”, “Need Note AND Mortgage To Foreclose” – CULHANE vs. AURORA LOAN SVCS of NEBRASKA”

  1. JDStony says:

    What do you mean KaBoom. He ruled against her didn’t he?

  2. don says:

    Aurora won the summary judgement and can foreclose. The heading is misleading. According to the judge, there was no illegal foreclosure. His analysis was thorough, and basically said that unless there was some claim of fraud or other issue, common law in Mass supported the MERS system, and that Aurora had rights to the note and mortgage through possession of the full mortgage file with the note and the servicing rights. There was no smackdown, very misleading.

  3. MERS Is A Dummy Entity That Should Be Disregarded To Expose Self-Transfers And Other Conflicts Of Interest:
    http://bryllaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/alternative-way-to-challenge-mers.html

  4. dinsfla says:

    Non-attorney as I am.. I must present the facts. Read the advice the judge just offers… case law etc… where are the depos for these certifying officers? One has to read between the lines and there is great info even if the court sides with the borrower but rules for the bank. Think outside the box. I have over 400 cases on this site that are winners but this is one that must be put up for educational purposes… Just read the opening statement…follow it.

    “What does a judge do?” asked my three year old
    granddaughter Mia. Without half thinking, I answered,

    “A judge teaches law to people who come to court.”

    “The courts of general jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of
    Massachusetts (i.e., the Superior Court, the Appeals Court, and
    the Supreme Judicial Court), however, are common law courts,
    empowered to devise a remedy for every legally cognizable wrong.

    The justices of those Massachusetts courts necessarily must
    exercise a much wider focus and a broader vision to the end that
    “[e]very subject of the Commonwealth [will] find a certain
    remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or
    wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or
    character.” Mass. Const. pt. 1, art. XI.”

  5. don says:

    your posts and cases are good and helpful, just pointing out that had I not read the case that you presented, I would not have known that the judge sided with the Bank. Keep up the good work.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives